Wednesday, July 31, 2013

The
Court of Appeals in Britain released its decision today in the Nicklinson/Lamb
euthanasia case by upholding the decision of the lower court by rejecting the argument that an exception to homicide can be created to allow euthanasia based on a defense of necessity. The Court of Appeal also upheld that only parliament can change laws prohibiting euthanasia and
assisted suicide.

Mr Lamb was seeking a court declaration that any doctor who
helped him to die would have a defence against a charge of murder. The defence
is known as "necessity", meaning it was necessary for the doctor to
act to stop his suffering.

There
has been confusion concerning the Nicklinson/Lamb case which was asking the
court to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide. To legalize euthanasia, the court would have had to
create an exception to the homicide (murder) Act in the UK.

A
third plaintiff in the case, known only as Martin, appears to have won his
intervention by being granted the right to have greater clarification in the
prosecution guidelines with respect to assisted suicide.

Lord Judge

Keir
Starmer, the director of public prosecutions stated that he would appeal the
Martin decision to the Supreme Court.

Lord
Judge, as Lord Chief Justice, said:

"the law relating to assisting suicide
cannot be changed by judicial decision".

"whatever the personal views of any individual judge on these
delicate and sensitive subjects - and I suspect that the personal views of
individual judges would be as contradictory as those held by any other group of
people - the constitutional imperative is that, however subtle and impressive
the arguments to the contrary may be, we cannot effect the changes or disapply
the present statutory provisions, not because we are abdicating our
responsibility, but precisely because we are fulfilling our proper
constitutional role".

Dr
Andrew Fergusson of the Care Not Killing Alliance in the UK, a group that intervened in
the case, stated:

The judgment comprehensively and
completely dismissed these appeals, which sought to alter legislation covering
murder.

"All three judges strongly rejected
the notion that 'necessity' should be a defence in euthanasia cases, saying
this was not compatible with English Law. Further, the blanket prohibition on
assisted suicide in the UK is not contrary to Article 8 of the European
Convention on Human Rights."

"The judges, the Lord Chief Justice,
Lord Judge, the Master of the Rolls, Lord Dyson and Lord Justice Elias,
recognised that changing the laws on murder and suicide are matters for
Parliament alone. They acknowledged that these issues had been debated by
Parliament frequently in recent years."

"And they confirmed the simple truth
that the current law exists to protect the vulnerable and those without a
voice: disabled people, terminally ill people and elderly people, who might
otherwise feel pressured into ending their lives."

Dr Andrew Fergusson

Dr Fergusson continued:

"Two of the three judges
concluded that the DPP should issue some very minor clarification to the
prosecution guidelines covering assisted suicide for 'class two cases'
requiring the involvement of a health professional. We were persuaded by the
dissenting opinion from the UK's most senior judge that change was unnecessary
and unhelpful, but, importantly, this clarification does not change the current
law."

"These latest court cases, along with
previous cases and the numerous debates in Parliament confirm that there is a
limit to choice in a democratic and tolerant society. The judges acknowledged
these are three tragic cases but agreed with our view that it is not acceptable
to expect the state to sanction and condone murder."

"I hope this latest decision will now
draw a line once and for all under the legal debate and allow politicians,
society as a whole, and health professionals to focus attention on how we care
for the terminally ill, disabled and elderly."

Richard Hawkes

Richard Hawkes, chief executive of Scope, a charity for persons with disabilities stated:

"Why is it that when a able-bodied person wants to commit suicide we try to talk them out of it and offer them support, but when a disabled person wants to commit suicide we focus on how we can make that possible?"